The Mystery of the Tainted Cocaine

Over at The Stranger, Brendan Kiley has a fascinating look at why so much of the seized cocaine in the U.S. has been tainted with levamisole, a potentially deadly substance. I love this article’s puzzle-like structure, but this bit in particular gave me flashbacks to The Wire:

One thing that can be done: develop an inexpensive field-test kit to try to detect levamisole. Dr. Clark has invented such a kit and—in association with The Stranger, a few folks in the local harm-reduction community, and the People’s Harm Reduction Alliance (PHRA), which runs the U-District needle exchange—hopes to begin distributing kits in a few weeks. Unfortunately, kits are technically drug paraphernalia under Washington State law, not only because the kits will contain cocaine residue, but because it is illegal for any person to possess something used to “process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance.” It’s a perfect example of how drug prohibition laws make drugs more dangerous—an unregulated market for cocaine, with no quality control, has encouraged the use of levamisole as a cutting agent. And U.S. drug laws make it illegal for users to test their cocaine for poison—if users could, they might stop buying from dealers who sell tainted cocaine, putting economic pressure on the market to be less dangerous. It’s a classically self-defeating chain of policies, but some antidrug warriors defend it on the grounds that since drugs are illegal, users get what they deserve. And if cocaine is perceived as more dangerous, perhaps fewer people will use it.

This, of course, is a cruel, stupid, and expensive way to deal with the problem. As Dr. Clark put it: “The idea of letting addicts die to make drugs scarier is reprehensible.”

Why Can’t You Find Tron DVDs Anywhere?

Tron Legacy will soon be upon us, but don’t try to brush up on your Tron knowledge by obtaining the original. Used copies go for as much as $75 on Amazon, and it’s completely unavailable on Netflix. According to Hero Complex, director Steven Lisberger recently remastered the film for a Blu-Ray release. Lisberger commented:

They’re trying to figure out when the best time is to release it. I don’t think there’s anything intentional going on to deprive ‘Tron’ fans of the new edition.

I call complete bullshit on this. Disney would only withhold copies of Tron (AKA completely avoid flooding the entire market with Tron DVDs) if they believed it to be financially advantageous. And with graphics and plotting that are incredibly dated, waiting until after Tron Legacy has made its millions before re-releasing Tron is probably the best move.

Did These Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels Come from The Onion?

From the NYTimes comes these actual proposed graphics for cigarette packages:

Designed to cover half of a pack’s surface area, the new labels are intended to spur smokers to quit by providing graphic reminders of tobacco’s dangers. The labels are required under a law passed last year that gave the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco products for the first time.

Despite the serious nature of the ads, I can’t help but think of The Onion.

“We basically invented blogging.”

Nick Summers on why Slate isn’t doing so hot these days. According to Slate founder, Jacob Weisberg:

We basically invented blogging. And sort of the whole tone of the Web, which to me comes out of email more than anything else, a much more colloquial, personal form of diction. I think Slate was the publication that really, more than anyone else, developed that voice, which in some ways has now infiltrated back into print.

With that delusional attitude, I wonder why Slate has anything to worry about.

Gawker Shows Self-Restraint

Looks like the company that published an anonymous smear piece against Christine O’Donnell has demonstrated its capacity to pull itself back from the brink. A couple weeks ago, a 21-year old man was stabbed to death in Manhattan. Gawker ran a graphic photo of his corpse in its story. But after a huge outcry from friends, family and the internet, the blog giant actually decided to remove the photo.

This raised many questions. When is it okay to publish sensationalistic, graphic photos? And why would Gawker, of all places, respond to user outrage meaningfully? Ryan Kearney has a detailed breakdown of the situation:

That the photo was later taken down — and only after tens of thousands of people, including Jusko’s stepsister, had already seen it — says more about Gawker’s journalistic integrity, or lack thereof, than any statement Denton et al. could whip up. They might be too proud of their perceived mercilessness to admit they made a mistake, but the photo’s retraction is itself an admission — if not of a mistake, then at least that even Gawker, sometimes, can go too far.

Woman Solves Wheel of Fortune Puzzle With ONE LETTER

There are a lot of remarkable things about this video, but most of them don’t have to do with its main subject. Note specifically: 1) The look on the other contestants’ faces as they get completely owned, and 2) CNN reporter Jeanne Moos’ being completely STUNNED at this woman’s skill. I love “Wheel of Fortune” but guessing an entire phrase based on their word lengths is not exactly the greatest thing that mankind has ever accomplished. Where is a Ken Jennings human interest story when you need one?

Because The World Needs Another TRON LEGACY Trailer

Today, Disney released the third trailer for their upcoming film, Tron Legacy.

We’re less than two months from the release of this film and Disney is really cranking the marketing machine into overdrive. They have a lot on the line with this film and they are going to make sure everyone and their mother (literally) are ready to head to the local IMAX come Christmas this year.

That being said, I can’t help but feel like the relentless advertising effort reeks of desperation. Right about now, I can see the Disney executives who greenlit this film thinking to themselves, “Wow, we’re sinking $300 million into a movie that’s a sequel to a little-seen cult classic, whose primary audience was confined to the ultra-nerd crowd. This thing better do gangbusters or my head will be on someone’s plate come New Year’s!” There’s been a non-stop onslaught of posters, stills, trailers, soundtrack news, etc. etc. etc., all of them seemingly trying to will the interest for this film into existence.

[Contrast this with the marketing effort for James Cameron’s Avatar, which was muted by comparison. The film went on to box office glory and box office history despite the marketing effort and not because of it.]

Hollywood is obsessed with remakes and film’s based on existing properties, even when those properties will do nothing to help sell tickets. The idea is that the existing name/fanbase will make it easier to sell the film, but this theory hasn’t exactly been vindicated. Example: Who on Earth thought that the Jonah Hex fan club was going to turn out in large enough numbers to make that film a success? Ditto Scott Pilgrim. MAYBE ditto Tron Legacy in a couple months (although I doubt it). Over at Filmschoolrejects, Cole Abaius wrote about how challenging it was for the directors of Skyline to get their film made. Said one of the directors:

There’s this phenomenon that people have been cynical about in the last couple of years that I happen to agree with – that if a property isn’t based on something pre-existing, a video game, a comic book, graphic novel, [producers] won’t be interested. There’s a real aversion to original properties, but if you’ve got a graphic novel that sold 500 copies, they’ll say, ‘Look! It’s based off a graphic novel! It must be cool!’

Is there such a thing as “too much” advertising for one movie? Only insofar as it annoys people like me. But when you’ve already sunk hundreds of millions into a visually rich, sci-fi film, you’re going to want to pump as much money as you can in the service of getting butts into seats.

With each new poster image though, I can’t help but smell fear…the fear that maybe basing your film’s success on a moribund, decades-old property that your computer engineer dad kinda liked when it was in theaters and on VHS might not be the best way to do business anymore.

Can Tony Scott Be Stopped?

From Drew McWeeny’s review of Unstoppable:

But here’s the problem… you’ve got this cast that’s doing everything right, and you’ve got this script that strikes just the right tone, and you’ve got the action staged just right… and then you shoot it all like you’re embarrassed by it, like you’re determined to hide it all and make it impossible to see. Because that’s what Tony Scott’s visual signature has devolved to at this point, and I mean devolved. It’s been a sliding scale of incoherence for a while now, and Hollywood continues to fall over itself to reward him for it. It’s almost like a wicked joke that the name of the film that finally broke me in regards to Tony Scott is called “Unstoppable,” because he certainly is. If the film was just a bad film, it wouldn’t matter as much, but it’s a good film that is buried in a visual style that can best be described as “evasive.”

I agree that Scott’s style is fairly insufferable, but I think Unstoppable is his most “general audience-friendly” film in years. Compared to films like The Taking of Pelham 123, Deja Vu, and Man on Fire, Unstoppable is a model of self-restraint. That being said, Scott’s re-use of the same damn shots over and over and over again in Unstoppable is hilarious and should make for good MST3K fodder down the line.

[It’s actually hard to describe until you see the film; why would a director employ the same exact swooping camera move around the train “cockpit” a dozen times over the course of a film? Baffling.]